SphericalTime:We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess. Which groups are already working on this? The ACLU?

This country was unable to get child labor or equal rights amendments passed, there's no chance of an amendment on this passing. Not with everyone in Congress potentially having the chance to profit from this ruling.

Serious Black:zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?

"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption - quid pro quo corruption - in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."

Serious Black:zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?

Pg 1, bottom. Gets worseMoney in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).

SphericalTime:Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?

"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption - quid pro quo corruption - in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."

Do I have a First Amendment right to kick John Roberts in the groin whilst wearing a steel-toed boot?

zedster:Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?

Pg 1, bottom. Gets worse

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).

Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

dr_blasto:Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.

"Moreover, the only type of corruption that Congress may target is quid pro quo corruption. Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner "influence over or access to" elected officials or political parties. Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, 359."

Irving Maimway:dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.

Look, if money is one of the primary arbiters of whether one gets prison or freedom or some form of kindly understanding from the judicial system, why shouldn't it be the same for the electoral systems.

I look forward to a return to the days of our noble robber barons running the show. Maybe when it ends this time, we'll nationalize their shiat and take their fortunes to destroy all of those lingering plutocrat dynasties once and for all. In the end, I guess we get what we deserve.

People re-elect douchenozzles like Reagan, elect his VP and then elect the former VP's son. We get the SCOTUS we ask for. For shiat's sake, Reagan nominated farking Bork. We only narrowly dodged that shiat show and got the Alitos and Scalias and Thomas. farking Clarence Thomas. "OOH, there's NOT ENOUGH money."

well then, I can't wait to see just how expensive 2014 is going to be then....

/on the bright side, we have proven that money doesn't necessarily buy an election//see 2012

Well, the cap on contributions to individual candidates is still in place. Same with the cap on contributions to the DNC and RNC. I suppose someone might contribute to one candidate in every House and Senate seat up for election in a given cycle, but that would seem like a real waste of money.

Nabb1:Well, the cap on contributions to individual candidates is still in place. Same with the cap on contributions to the DNC and RNC. I suppose someone might contribute to one candidate in every House and Senate seat up for election in a given cycle, but that would seem like a real waste of money.

if we could donate the same amount to every race, to both candidates (or all for those crazy third-party critters) then we'd have election reform

somedude210:James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.

if only the people they donated too would actually buy shiat in mass amounts and not horde it all

Sure, they pay telemarketers to do push polling. They pay for print, TV and radio adds. They pay for bloggers to update their sucky blogs. They hire shiatty statisticians and half retarded pundits. Security staff at rallies and expensive dinners.

FlashHarry:In 2012,sixty percent of the Super PAC money donated by individuals came from just 91 people, and 97 percent came from just 1,900 donors. The total amount that PACs raised from small donors of $200 or less is roughly equivalent to the amount given by just 629 "megadonors," who each contributed $100,000 or more.

That's a completely separate issue from individual campaign contributions, though. And, I will grant, a much more complex problem than straightforward campaign contributions.